I love my 16-50, a fantastic lens. Sharp, Weather-proof, good focal range, fast, quiet. The lens lives on my camera.

Close focus is great for shallow DoF especially at 50mm.

Even better paired with the 50-135. between them they really do almost everything I could ever want. For longer stuff I have the 300. Sometimes wish for something wider such as an 11-16 also based on a Tokina.

Cool, can I have that on the K-3?!

What I want to know is what exactly the Bokeh Control function does.

I love my A28 f/2.8 very sharp, even across the frame, and the perfect normal FoV.

How come there is no case for the 21?

Opinions on the 21 seem good overall but a few people who don't like it.

John, she is not fond of the 16-50. Mostly because of decentering with mine (whole front optic is being replaced as I type ).

I don't have a huge amount of space in my camera bag for spare lenses. Already carry two bodies, four lenses and two flashes, plus other bits. This is why the pancakes are appealing, I could both lighten my bag and cover every eventuality at the same time. Lou shoots with primes most of the time so primes were my first thought.

If the 21 turns out to be something I enjoy using then I'll probably choose it over the 16-50 in a lot of situations. That way swapping over in dire straights will not be a problem. Plenty of practice before taking it out for real.

The Tamron seems to be popular and a little smaller better optically than the 16-50.

24-70 may not be quite wide enough 36mm compared to 32 doesn't sound like a lot but may make a difference.

Hmmm, so you think me and/or my wife will be disappointed with anything other than a second 16-50?

28mm is great on the ME Super and Super A we have so the 21mm may be the best option. A little longest than I'd like and maybe not as fast but given the size I think that 'huge' half stop can be overlooked.

I use my 50-135 for this sort of stuff. Works fine, with a wider lens you will be up in the couple's faces. That focal range gives you a good working distance and bokeh.

I was avoiding looking at the camera and lens used to not somehow bias my opinion about the sharpness.

Tri-x won't have the best sharpness due to the grain but then you don't shoot tri-x for smooth small grain.

I'll be interested to see where this is going.

I need to get my wife a decent wide/normal lens that I can also use as a backup when out on a shoot. Having my main lens away for repair has made me rethink my backup lenses. Having been spoilt with the 16-50 the 18-55 just doesn't cut it anymore.

She would be very happy with a second 16-50 but then we are just duplicating lenses which sometimes seems a little pointless.

The choices are:

Tamron 17-50/2.8

Pentax 17-70/4

Sigma 17-50/2.8

Or perhaps a combination of primes. At the moment I am using my A28/2.8 quite a lot but it doesn't focus close enough for a few odd bits and isn't wide enough in some situations.

I am quite tempted to get a limited lens. There is just something telling me to go in that direction but then I have to choose just one to start with.

15 would allow me to do every wide shot the 16-50 could do plus a little wider and much greater flare resistance.

21 would be compact and moderately wide.

35 would be a normal macro of great build quality.

I don't think I want to go any longer than that as I have the 50-135 and 90 macro which are fine lenses and can act as backups for back other (90 falls right in the middle of the range of the 50-135).

It is quite a tough choice as I am unlikely to be making any other lens investments until next year.

Opinions would be appreciated.